This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
I'd like to order more information: how many orders of plants are there? how many of animals? I'd like a side order of a link to a list. Thank you. Pliny20:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term used before Linnaeus
The article says that the term 'order' was introduced by Rivinus instead of genus summum. But, in aphorism 200, Linnaeus's Philosophia Botanica, Linnaeus indicates his term ordo corresponds to sectio of Tournefort and genus subalternum of Ray and Rivinus. Also his classistoordo of Tournefort and genus summum of Ray and Rivinus. In Latin, genus summum literally means "the highest genus". So it seems reasonable that genus summum corresponds to classis in Linnean system and ordo in Tournefort's system, as these terms are the highest rank in each system. So my question is "Is it certain that Rivinus (not Tournefort) has introduced the term 'order'?" Please note I am quite new to Latin and I have never read treatises of Tournefort, Rivinus, and Ray.--Mzaki07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rely on autopsy here. I red Rivinus myself, and I can confirm that. Actually, I can provide you with a reference to my book published in Russian touсhing upon the issue, though it would be, I am afraid, of little use for anyone who does not read Russian :) The concept of rank was at that time in statu nascendi and authors did not use terms consistently. The Ray's genus summum corresponds roughly to Rivinus's ordo (and Rivinus uses genus summum and ordo interchangeably), and Tournefort's classis. Linnaeus's ordo corresponds to Tournefort's section. Note, plese, that all correspondences are rather rough. One can compare different pre-linnaean classifications using Classes Plantarum by Linnaeus. Alexei Kouprianov20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I've been interested in your book, however, it would be unfortunately all Greek to me as you supposed :) --Mzaki20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am alarmed at the attachment of this article apparently only to WikiProject Plants; the rank applies in animal taxonomy also, as therefore should the article given its inclusive title.
Incomprehensible text
"order (ordo) was reserved for a higher rank, for what in the nineteenth century had often been boobinlaw or Labiatae)"
The final words of the above appear to be an editing error. The word "boobinlaw" is unknown to me or the dictionaries and the word Labiatae is apparently that of a [plant Family] and does not parse coherently in the context.
Iph18:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)iph[reply]
what does this mean?
I don't understand the last sentence of the intro: "Most of orders ends up with word -iformes, except for mammals and invertebrates." Could someone clarify? --Allen (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know if the fact is accurate -- and perhaps it would be better stated in reverse: for the names of most avian and reptilian (and other?) orders, as invertebrate orders certainly are more numerous...
The Parvorder article redirects here, but there is no description of this recent term — not found in dictionaries. It needs a sub-section explaining its coining, etymology, and whether universally accepted or not (in ornithology, other fields).
Other types of orders (infraorder, etc.) then need a brief sub-section each also.
